Shoker v. Ghuman

RG19036992: Shoker VS Ghuman 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order re Restitution from Judgment Enforcement; filed by Sukhjinder Singh Ghuman (Defendant) CRS# 298590044127 in Department 25

Tentative Ruling - 07/29/2026 Jenna Whitman

The Motion for Order for Restitution and to Restore Status Quo filed by Sukhjinder Singh Ghuman on 07/02/2026 is Denied.

Defendants’ motion is grounded in statutory and case law permitting an order of restitution when a reviewing court has reversed or modified the trial court’s judgment on appeal. Defendants acknowledge that a court may decline to issue such an order if restitution would be inequitable. (Beach Break Equities, LLC v. Lowell (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 847, 852-853.)

Here, there is not yet an enforceable judgment, only a split judgment held in abeyance by operation of law. And while Defendants argue that the circumstances here are analogous, the only aspect of the judgment that may be reversed or modified in connection with Phase II of trial – Defendants’ ability to withstand the punitive damages award – has no connection to the moneys and property Defendants seek to recover as restitution. Thus, even after Phase II of trial has been conducted and judgment entered, there will be no basis for restitution, unless and until the judgment is reversed or modified on appeal.

Plaintiffs’ enforcement efforts, when conducted, were lawful. (No stay of enforcement had been entered, the judgment was then in force, and no notice of appeal had been filed.) After the Court issued its New Trial Order and later acknowledged that the judgment was held in abeyance, Defendants waited over one year to move for restitution. In the interim, Plaintiffs have expended millions of dollars on the properties to clear encumbrances, tax delinquencies, maintenance issues, and for transfer taxes and recording fees.

If the Shokers were ordered to return the $182,898.14 they collected before the New Trial Order, Defendants, who claim to have no assets, would not be in any position to put the parties back to the status quo ante. There is also the risk that Defendants will drain further equity from the properties, rendering them valueless, and defeating Plaintiffs’ eventual right of recovery if the judgment is affirmed on appeal, even in part. Defendants also fail to address the difficulty and expense and further accounting that will be involved in re-transferring the real properties back, and then potentially re-transferring to Plaintiffs if the compensatory aspects of the judgment are affirmed on appeal.